In a message dated 4/7/2008 3:55:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
It is for all these reasons that I propose to name the council the "Project council" PC and for it to represent the interest and needs of the projects.
While this seems at first a good idea, it leaves me wondering about liability. If this council represents the interests and needs of the projects, would its members then be ultimately responsible for the projects? If, for example, someone wants to sue the Bulgarian Wikipedia or the English Wikinews, would they direct their efforts to the members of said council who represent its "interests and needs"? The WMF has always claimed that it is not a publisher and it is, therefore, not responsible for content. Would the same defense hold true of a Project Council?
Rather than speculate, I think Mr. Godwin should respond.
Danny
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
Hoi, Not every project will have a representative. This is just not feasible. It follows that there is no direct connection between any one project and a member of the PC. In a way this is exactly the same as it currently is for the chosen members in the board of trustees or the stewards.
By not looking for power but by looking for influence there can imho be no mistake that the members of a PC are not in a position to be responsible for every little detail that happens in the projects. In my opinion the last thing we should want is removing the liability from editors. In order to take liability you have to build a structure of oversight, something that is not possible and is not done on any of the projects that rely on input from the general public.
What we can do is provide mechanisms to react once notice has been given about issues. Then again I am sure, Danny having been had the "office oversight" functionality, you are asking questions you know the answer for.
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 3:00 PM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/7/2008 3:55:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
It is for all these reasons that I propose to name the council the "Project council" PC and for it to represent the interest and needs of the projects.
While this seems at first a good idea, it leaves me wondering about liability. If this council represents the interests and needs of the projects, would its members then be ultimately responsible for the projects? If, for example, someone wants to sue the Bulgarian Wikipedia or the English Wikinews, would they direct their efforts to the members of said council who represent its "interests and needs"? The WMF has always claimed that it is not a publisher and it is, therefore, not responsible for content. Would the same defense hold true of a Project Council?
Rather than speculate, I think Mr. Godwin should respond.
Danny
**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. ( http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016 ) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:00 AM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
While this seems at first a good idea, it leaves me wondering about liability. If this council represents the interests and needs of the projects, would its members then be ultimately responsible for the projects? If, for example, someone wants to sue the Bulgarian Wikipedia or the English Wikinews, would they direct their efforts to the members of said council who represent its "interests and needs"? The WMF has always claimed that it is not a publisher and it is, therefore, not responsible for content. Would the same defense hold true of a Project Council?
If you follow the premise that some how self-appointed volunteer "responsibility" (which is so ephemeral as to hardly be an appropriate use of the word "responsibility") is tied to the legal notion of responsibility. We're not talking about a legal entity with legal authority over the projects, we're talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects and communicating with them.
In all this, you can't forget that the WMF board retains ultimate legal control over the projects, and nowhere has there been a suggestion that this legal authority be passed to any other entity, much less the VC.
--Andrew Whitworth
Except it's dangerous to assume that such authority cannot be implied in law, even when not expressly granted. From everything I've been reading here we're not at all talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects, but rather a group of representatives who are interested in being the voice of the projects to the board, and under some interpretations, having control over the board. That's something that might imply responsibility.
-Dan On Apr 7, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:00 AM, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
While this seems at first a good idea, it leaves me wondering about liability. If this council represents the interests and needs of the projects, would its members then be ultimately responsible for the projects? If, for example, someone wants to sue the Bulgarian Wikipedia or the English Wikinews, would they direct their efforts to the members of said council who represent its "interests and needs"? The WMF has always claimed that it is not a publisher and it is, therefore, not responsible for content. Would the same defense hold true of a Project Council?
If you follow the premise that some how self-appointed volunteer "responsibility" (which is so ephemeral as to hardly be an appropriate use of the word "responsibility") is tied to the legal notion of responsibility. We're not talking about a legal entity with legal authority over the projects, we're talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects and communicating with them.
In all this, you can't forget that the WMF board retains ultimate legal control over the projects, and nowhere has there been a suggestion that this legal authority be passed to any other entity, much less the VC.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Except it's dangerous to assume that such authority cannot be implied in law, even when not expressly granted. From everything I've been reading here we're not at all talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects, but rather a group of representatives who are interested in being the voice of the projects to the board, and under some interpretations, having control over the board. That's something that might imply responsibility.
Why aren't people freaking out about the existing committees then? The chapcom plays a role, at least an ad hoc one, of helping to represent prospective chapters to the board, and serve as a communication medium between chapters and the board. Does that mean that the chapcom is some kind of legal entity, or some kind of legal liability? If the chapcom makes suggestions to the board that the board follows, does that imply that the chapcom has control over the board?
The languages subcommittee acts as a representative for people planning to create new language projects, and makes suggestions to the board. Does that mean that the languages subcommittee is in control of the board? Is this a legal liability? What about the communications committee too?
If what you say about the PVC being a potential legal problem is true, then it seems like we are already having that problem. If we follow the assumption that the PVC is just an advisory position like any of the other committees, then it avoids all the legal problems that the committees avoid.
--Andrew Whitworth
The difference between ChapCom and LangCom, and the VC's are that the end result of their actions are merely the opening/closing of chapters or languages (I'm sure I'm insulting someone from those two committees by oversimplification, but please bear out the whole analogy), whereas with the VC, the end result of their actions are the representation and advisement of the community as a whole to the board, something significantly more important. Surely you can understand the difference here. The existing committees don't affect anything that could cause significant legal problems for the foundation, whereas the VC potentially does. It would be rash to proceed at all without viewing the creation of any such representative body through the lens of what's acceptable legally, and for that we need Mike's (or someone else's) opinion.
-Dan On Apr 7, 2008, at 10:46 AM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
Except it's dangerous to assume that such authority cannot be implied in law, even when not expressly granted. From everything I've been reading here we're not at all talking about a group of volunteers who are interested in helping the projects, but rather a group of representatives who are interested in being the voice of the projects to the board, and under some interpretations, having control over the board. That's something that might imply responsibility.
Why aren't people freaking out about the existing committees then? The chapcom plays a role, at least an ad hoc one, of helping to represent prospective chapters to the board, and serve as a communication medium between chapters and the board. Does that mean that the chapcom is some kind of legal entity, or some kind of legal liability? If the chapcom makes suggestions to the board that the board follows, does that imply that the chapcom has control over the board?
The languages subcommittee acts as a representative for people planning to create new language projects, and makes suggestions to the board. Does that mean that the languages subcommittee is in control of the board? Is this a legal liability? What about the communications committee too?
If what you say about the PVC being a potential legal problem is true, then it seems like we are already having that problem. If we follow the assumption that the PVC is just an advisory position like any of the other committees, then it avoids all the legal problems that the committees avoid.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org